United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Eastman Performance
Films' Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 42.] The motion was
submitted on brief without oral argument. I have reviewed the
pleadings, arguments, and relevant law. For the reasons
stated herein, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss
Sae Han Sheet Co., Ltd. ("Plaintiff) is a South Korean
company engaged in international trade. Defendant Eastman
Performance Films ("Eastman") is the ultimate
successor to Commonwealth Laminating and Coating, a Virginia
company which may have manufactured some or all the goods at
issue in this case. The relevant factual allegations are
relatively unchanged from my prior opinion. (See
Mem. Op. pgs. 1-3, Apr. 11, 2019 [ECF No. 34].)
relevant to the present motion, the Local Rules of this court
provide for fourteen days for a response to any motion. See
Local Civ. R. 14(c)(1). Moreover, the Pretrial Order issued
in this case states:
Briefs in opposition must be filed within 14 days of the date
of the service of the movant's brief (or within 14 days
of this Order is a motion and brief have been served prior to
this Order). EXCEPT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IF BRIEFS
IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS ARE NOT FILED, IT WILL BE DEEMED
THAT THE MOTION IS WELL TAKEN.
(Order ¶ 4, Jan. 4, 2019 [ECF No. 24].) The quoted
language from the Pretrial Order was also directly referenced
in my prior opinion on a motion to dismiss. (Mem. Op. pg. 3
n.3, Apr. 11, 2019 [ECF No. 34].)
present Motion to Dismiss was filed on May 13, 2019 [ECF No. 42];
Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition until June 3
[ECF No. 48]. Plaintiffs response, therefore, was filed
twenty-one days after the initial motion and in plain
violation of the Local Rules and Pretrial Order. At no point
did Plaintiff seek leave to file a late response and, to
date, it has failed to offer any justification whatsoever for
its late response.
has the authority to dismiss an action if a party violates
the court's orders or local rules. See, e.g.,
C.H. v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ. No.
1:12-CV-000377, 2014 WL 1092290, at *1 (W.D. N.C. May 18,
2014). Ordinarily, I would not grant a motion to dismiss
merely because a party responded seven days past the time set
forth in the Local Rules and the Pretrial Order. In the
present case, however, Plaintiff was served with the Pretrial
Order and expressly warned in a prior opinion that
late filings were not permitted without the express approval
of the court. In contravention of that warning, Plaintiff
again filed a late response to a Motion to Dismiss.
When confronted with Defendant's response in which the
timeliness issue was raised [see ECF No. 50],
Plaintiff failed to seek leave of the court to accept its
late response and failed to offer any justification for its
an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court
may, for good cause, extend the time ... on motion made after
time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). More than
three months after the fact, Plaintiff has failed to file a
motion asking the court to extend the time in which it was
permitted to file its response, and it has failed to offer
any justification to show that its neglect was excusable.
Considering the totality of the circumstances and Plaintiffs
failure to seek leave for its actions or offer any
justification whatsoever, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
will be deemed well-taken, the Motion will be granted, and
Plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed.
clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all
counsel of record.
 Although Eastman Performance Films was
not technically a party to the cited motion to dismiss, it
joined in that motion in its entirety. (See Mot. to
Dismiss pg. 2, May 31, 2019 [ECF No. 45].) By agreement
between the parties, the dismissed parties' Motion to
Dismiss remained pending for Eastman Performance Films. (See
Order ¶ 3, Sept. 10, 2019 [ECF No. 71].)
 Although Eastman was not a party to
that Motion, it filed its own Motion to Dismiss on May 31.
[ECF No. 45.] By agreement of the parties, however,
Eastman's Motion to Dismiss was supplanted by the
previously filed Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, and with the
consent of Plaintiff, the ...